On Aug. 11, China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Vice President Li Yafei (李亞飛) said the so-called “1992 consensus,” supposedly arrived at by ARATS and its Taiwanese counterpart the Straits Exchange Foundation (海基會), was “a consensus expressed in spoken form by each side that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait both adhere to the one China principle.”
Pro-unification media in Taiwan were thrilled by Li’s comment, believing it to be a clear expression by the Chinese side that it accepts that the “1992 consensus” means there is only one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what China is.
In fact, Li was only repeating the ARATS’ position as put forward in 1992, namely that the two sides “signaled their agreement to each express in spoken form their adherence to the one China principle.” The Chinese side maintains that the “1992 consensus” means “both sides expressed in spoken form the one China principle,” while rejecting the notion of “one China with each side having its own interpretation” and its attitude in this respect has not changed.
Li did no more than reiterate ARATS’ established position, yet the pro-unification media pretend that what he said signified recognition of “one China with each side having its own interpretation.” Either these commentators are ignorant of history or they are trying to deceive their readers and viewers.
While insisting that the two sides “accepted the one China principle in spoken form,” China does not accept the idea of “one China with each side having its own interpretation.”
China’s rationale for this attitude is that the government of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who was Taiwan’s president in 1992, later interpreted “China” as meaning a historic China, while defining the status quo as a transitional one of two Chinas. Lee’s notion of two Chinas contradicts the Chinese side’s “one China” position, namely that “there is only one China in the world, Taiwan is a part of China and China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are undivided.” China’s reason for rejecting “one China with each side having its own interpretation” is that it could allow Taiwan to interpret “one China” in such a way as to empty it of its political content. That is why China insists on the “one China principle” and does not permit any other form of expression.
China does not worry about Taiwan’s adherence to the title “Republic of China” (ROC) because as far as Beijing is concerned the international consensus with regard to “one China” is that “there is only one China in the world and China is represented by the government in Beijing.” The claim that the ROC represents China is not accepted internationally. What Beijing is worried about is that Taiwan may not accept that it is part of China. Now Taiwan’s government accepts that Taiwan is part of China, although it claims that China is the ROC. Since almost the whole world recognizes the government in Beijing as representing China, if it is accepted that Taiwan is part of China, that means the government in Beijing also represents Taiwan. Thus, the argument about whether “one China” is the ROC or the People’s Republic of China is a bogus issue. As long as Taiwan accepts it is part of China, internationally it will be considered to have been legally annexed by Beijing.
Handling cross-strait relations demands a thorough understanding of history. Those who arbitrarily interpret the documents to suit their own requirements are fooling others and kidding themselves and in the end such behavior could have disastrous results. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and pro-unification media and academics would do well to think before they speak.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
While global headlines often focus on the military balance in the Taiwan Strait or the promise of US intervention, there is a quieter, less visible battle that might ultimately define Taiwan’s future: the battle for intelligence autonomy. Despite widespread global adherence to the “one China” policy, Taiwan has steadily cultivated a unique political identity and security strategy grounded in self-reliance. This approach is not merely symbolic; it is a pragmatic necessity in the face of Beijing’s growing political warfare and infiltration campaigns, many orchestrated by the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS). Taiwan’s intelligence community did not emerge overnight. Its roots
RSS